Hi Axel,

> well, we do not really know, consider for example the gerson institute.
> they use some things that are not natural, but also a lot of high quality
> vegetable juice, and people are reported to heal from very serious
> life-threatening conditions.

The Gerson Institute has been discussed here recently.

Tom Billings said on Oct 15, 1998:
> in "Mystical Diets" by Jack Raso, there is a brief discussion of a study
> on the Gerson therapy, by Steve Austin (published in "Options: The
> Alternative Cancer Therapy Book" [1993]). Austin tracked the progress
> of 30 patients at the Gerson Clinic. Five years later he was able
> to locate or find info on 22 of the 30. Of the 22, only one was still
> alive - 21 were dead of cancer.


> > -Even wild animals can die from infectious diseases.

Axel:
> i do not believe in infectious diseases. i do not believe that germs or
> bacteria can do something to a human organism by themselves.

Really? Then you should contact the US Army, they will be interested
to learn that their biological weapons are worthless. Perhaps they
will even inoculate you with anthrax
(http://www.defenselink.mil/other_info/agent.html) if you are willing
to test your theories (after signing a discharge, of course).

> i mean, please tell me of different experiments where
> animals where subjected to drugs, in what amounts, for how long, what
> results did they get, etc

I am not an expert, and therefore cannot give you many details, but
suppose I had to test a vaccine. Then, I would
 -divide a population (possibly of genetically identical) mice into
two parts,
 -give the vaccine to one group,
 -after a few days, infect each animal,
 -then count the number of survivors there in each group.
There are some rigorous methods in statistics to determine whether
differences are significant or not (i.e. whether the vaccine is
effective).

Note that researchers are perfectly aware that vaccines are not 100%
effective, and can have undesirable side-effects. Accidents do occur,
but it is reasonable to take the risk whenever the disease is pandemic
(and therefore "chances" of being infected are much higher than
"chances" of being a victim of an accident with the vaccine).

The above was for vaccines, but similar methods apply for other
treatments. Since there is no placebo effect with animals, and since
it is easy to control all variables, there is no question the above
method proves the effectiveness of the treatment on animals (i.e. the
treatment increases chances to heal/survive). I agree that what is
valid for mice (or other animals) is not necessary valid for humans,
but experiments on animals only constitute a first step. Once
researchers are convinced the treatment works (and is safe) on animal
models, then it is time to test it on humans.

> i know some will say you have to bring scientific and solid evidence for
> you unsupported claims, but i can also say for example that if you say
> animal experiments save lives, you have to bring the scientific proof for
> this. just because it is common lore doesn't make it true.

Since virtually all drugs are tested on animals prior to their
use on humans, your claim that all experiments on animals are useless
amounts to saying that _none_ of the known drugs can save lives. Since
there are numerous well-controlled clinical trials (i.e. care is taken
that no extra variable can affect the results), your claim would imply
that in _each_ case, either researchers have made an error, or that they
are dishonest. Your claim would imply that laboratories spend millions
of dollars to make vaccines, drugs, etc. that are less effective than
placebos, and pay researchers to distort their results; that among the
thousands of molecules that have been tested, _none_ is more effective
than a placebo, and yet researchers spend years trying to explain
mechanisms that in your opinion are totally invented. Moreover, since
there is a certain coherence between scientific papers, your claim
again implies that they plagiarize each other in order to get
consistent theories... All the above seems very difficult to accept to
me.

> finally, i am just a guy, if you want to learn about this subject, read
> "slaughter of the innocent", by hans ruesch. there are many anti animal
> experiments books, but this is the "bible".

The fact that you have read something in a popular book doesn't mean
it is entirely true. Of course, there is no doubt that medicine is far
from being perfect, but saying that it is _never_ effective is
somewhat exaggerated. You will always find examples where such or such
treatment has failed, and there is probably a lot of "bad" research,
but rejecting everything seems a ridiculous idea to me.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>

P.S. Why don't you (and Forest) use capital letters, is it because
 -capital letters are a sign of male domination, or
 -your "shift" key is broken, or
 -you don't want to overexert your left pinkie?